The bill amends Internal Revenue Code section 414A(c)(3) to extend the existing exception for certain plans so that multiemployer plans (as defined in section 414(f)) are explicitly excluded from the Code’s automatic-enrollment requirements. The textual change updates the section heading and the operative clause to name multiemployer plans alongside church plans.
Why it matters: multiemployer plans are typically governed by collective bargaining and joint trustee arrangements where unilateral automatic-enrollment mandates create legal and practical friction. The amendment removes that uncertainty by allowing those plans to remain outside the automatic-enrollment rules, affecting trustees, contributing employers, unions, and administrators that service Taft–Hartley plans.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill amends 26 U.S.C. §414A(c)(3) by inserting multiemployer plans into the list of plans exempt from the statutory requirements tied to automatic enrollment; it also updates the section heading to reflect the change. The amendment references multiemployer plans as defined in §414(f).
Who It Affects
Trustees and plan administrators of Taft–Hartley/multiemployer defined contribution and defined benefit plans, contributing employers that participate in those plans, unions that negotiate plan terms, and third-party recordkeepers and TPAs who implement plan design changes. The IRS and plan counsel will also be involved in interpreting and operationalizing the change.
Why It Matters
The change removes ambiguity about whether automatic-enrollment rules apply to collectively bargained plans, lowering the risk that complying with automatic-enrollment requirements would conflict with collective bargaining agreements or established governance structures. Practically, it preserves status quo flexibility for plan design in the multiemployer context and reduces potential tax compliance exposure for trustees.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
Current law sets rules for automatic contribution arrangements and also lists categories of plans that are not subject to certain automatic-enrollment requirements. This bill inserts multiemployer plans into that exclusion.
Concretely, the statutory text and heading of 26 U.S.C. §414A(c)(3) are altered so that the phrase that formerly exempted only church plans (and similar categories) now names multiemployer plans explicitly by cross-reference to §414(f).
The effect is limited and precise: the bill does not change what a multiemployer plan is, nor does it force multiemployer plans to adopt or reject automatic enrollment. Instead, it removes the statutory obligation that could otherwise be read to require or govern automatic-enrollment features for these plans.
That matters because multiemployer plans commonly operate under collective-bargaining agreements and joint-trustee governance structures that may prevent unilateral participant-level design changes without union and employer agreement.Operationally, trustees and plan administrators will need to note the amended statutory text when advising on plan amendments and compliance. Because the bill references the definition in §414(f), plans that meet that statutory definition retain their current discretion over whether to implement automatic enrollment; the bill simply clarifies that the automatic-enrollment rules in §414A do not compel a different result.
The bill’s effective date—applying to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2024—will require administrators to align plan-year and taxable-year considerations when applying the change to 2025 plan operations and filings.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill amends 26 U.S.C. §414A(c)(3) to add multiemployer plans to the statutory exception related to automatic-enrollment requirements.
It changes the section heading to read ‘‘Church Plans, and Multiemployer Plans’’ and inserts a cross-reference to multiemployer plans as defined in §414(f) into the operative text.
The amendment is narrow: it clarifies statutory application rather than redefining multiemployer plans or imposing new design requirements on them.
The effective date applies to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2024, making the amendment operative for most 2025 taxable years.
The bill preserves the ability of multiemployer plans to adopt voluntary automatic-enrollment features but prevents the automatic-enrollment statutory regime from being read to override collective-bargaining or governance arrangements in those plans.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Amend section heading to add multiemployer plans
This subsection replaces the existing heading language of §414A(c)(3) so the heading explicitly names multiemployer plans alongside church plans. Headings do not change substantive law by themselves, but this makes the statute’s intent clearer in statutory navigation and in administrative or legal citations, reducing ambiguity in guidance and litigation over whether multiemployer plans fall within the exemption.
Insert multiemployer plans into the text of the exception
This change strikes the clause that previously exempted church plans and expands it to exempt ‘‘any church plan (within the meaning of section 414(e)), or any multiemployer plan (as defined in section 414(f)).’’ The practical consequence is that the automatic-enrollment provisions in §414A will not be read to require or control automatic-enrollment features for plans that satisfy the §414(f) definition—i.e., typical Taft–Hartley plans maintained under collective bargaining. Plan counsel will need to reconcile this textual carve-out with ERISA fiduciary and bargaining obligations when advising on plan amendments.
Effective date—taxable years beginning after 12/31/2024
The amendment applies to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2024. That dating creates an operational milestone: administrators must decide whether and how to apply the change to plan operations, participant notices, and employer tax reporting for plan and employer taxable years that start in 2025. The provision is purely prospective and does not purport to retroactively alter earlier filings or tax treatments.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Employment across all five countries.
Explore Employment in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Multiemployer plan trustees and joint boards — gain legal clarity that automatic-enrollment rules will not be read to trump collectively bargained plan design, reducing litigation and compliance risk when implementing plan terms set through bargaining.
- Contributing employers in multiemployer plans — avoid unilateral obligations to enroll employees that could conflict with bargaining agreements or increase employer administrative complexity and costs across multiple employers.
- Unions and bargaining representatives — preserve the negotiating space to set contribution and participation terms without an external automatic-enrollment mandate altering bargained arrangements.
- Third-party administrators and recordkeepers serving Taft–Hartley plans — benefit from reduced ambiguity about whether they must implement statutory automatic-enrollment mechanics for these clients, simplifying implementation choices.
- Plan counsel and benefits advisors — get a clearer statutory baseline for advising multiemployer plans on whether to adopt automatic enrollment or to maintain prior enrollment structures.
Who Bears the Cost
- Participants in multiemployer plans who would have been automatically enrolled under a universal automatic-enrollment regime — may lose an avenue to higher default participation and thus may save less if the plan or bargaining parties do not adopt voluntary auto-enroll.
- Employers or coalitions within multiemployer arrangements that wanted to deploy automatic enrollment to boost participation — may face additional negotiation and administrative cost to secure unanimous or bargaining-party approval instead of relying on statutory rules.
- Plan administrators who must update plan documents and participant communications to reflect the exemption — administrative and drafting costs, plus potential coordination with counsel to confirm plan status under §414(f).
- IRS and regulatory staff — will need to issue or interpret guidance on the interaction between §414A and §414(f) in the multiemployer context, imposing interpretive and oversight workload.
- Small employers in a multiemployer pool — could indirectly bear higher plan costs if voluntary enrollment changes shift administrative burdens or if participation outcomes alter plan funding dynamics.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill confronts the trade-off between boosting retirement savings through uniform automatic-enrollment rules and preserving the autonomy and practicality of collectively bargained plan governance: promoting higher default participation is a public-policy goal, but forcing a one-size-fits-all enrollment rule on multiemployer plans risks colliding with collective bargaining, joint-trustee decisionmaking, and the operational realities of plans with many contributing employers.
The bill resolves an obvious statutory ambiguity but raises implementation questions that will fall to the IRS and plan counsel. The text relies on the §414(f) definition of a multiemployer plan, which covers a particular set of collectively bargained arrangements; disputes could arise over borderline arrangements (e.g., plans with both single-employer and multiemployer features, or plans that change status due to withdrawals or employer composition).
Guidance will be necessary to define the universe of plans covered and to explain how the exemption interacts with other federal requirements such as ERISA fiduciary duties and Department of Labor notice rules.
Another tension is operational: while the bill prevents the automatic-enrollment rules from applying to multiemployer plans, it does not prohibit plans from adopting automatic enrollment voluntarily. That creates a patchwork in which identical workers could be subject to different enrollment regimes depending on their plan’s bargaining outcome.
Employers and unions will need to negotiate whether to adopt auto-enroll and who pays the administrative and potential matching costs. Finally, the effective-date language ties the change to taxable years, not plan years, which can cause misalignment for plan administrators and increase short-term compliance work as entities map taxable-year-effective changes onto plan-year processes and participant disclosures.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.